Ellison Lodge’s attempt to bring order to the debate about Jewish nationalism and influence in America was very laudable and plausible. His categories have the appearance of fairness and balance, which is an achievement in an area that generates so much “heat” and miasma.

His four categories also have a pleasing symmetry and simplicity that almost reminded me of Newton’s laws of planetary motion. However, after a few days rolling them around in various portions of my rather convoluted and un-geometrical mind, I couldn’t help thinking that they made the classic Western (or White) intellectual error of equivalence, which is treating things as if they all exist on the same plane.

The crux of Byron Roth's disagreement with Kevin MacDonald is essentially that Prof. MacDonald makes criticisms of Israeli nationalism that he would never make about European peoples. This critique is frequently leveled against Patrick Buchanan by writers like Larry Auster.

I’ve been a U2 fan since the 1980s. But one thing that has continually bothered me over the years, as I am sure it has a considerable number of my fellow fans, is Bono’s extracurricular urge to be seen as some sort of Messiah figure, especially as his moral compass is about as accurate as a sundial in a coalmine.

Over the years, this has not only led him to pen some naïve and cringeworthy lyrics, but, in the latest case, has seen him flirt with the genocidal ideology of Marxist ANC extremists, who, egged on by the anti-White racism implicit in the international Marxist movement, believe in butchering all Whites in South Africa.

During a recent interview Bono suggested that ANC chants like “Kill the Boer” and “Bring Me My Machine Gun” had a legitimate place in South African culture, demonstrating gross naïvety or something worse.

While the multiple Oscar-nominated film The King’s Speech may be called a passably entertaining period piece, it is far from being a great movie. The fact that this film has won such overwhelmingly effusive plaudits from the Academy and critical establishment does, however, raise a fascinating question: Can a filmmaker, by referencing every acceptable cinematic “meme” and dishing out all the requisite thematic “tropes,” succeed at manipulating supposedly educated and erudite people into thinking that his film is far better than it actually is?

Put differently, can a mediocre and forgettable flick come to be regarded as “excellent” if it tells the chattering class exactly what it wants to hear and shows it just what it aches to see?